4 ms·

I'm not surprised. In many cases, I think the causality arrow runs backwards, from beliefs to (un)attractiveness. A lot of attractiveness is inborn, but a surpr

I'm not surprised. In many cases, I think the causality arrow runs backwards, from beliefs to (un)attractiveness. A lot of attractiveness is inborn, but a surprising amount is also related to personal choice (such as weight, hair style, fashion choices, personal hygiene, grooming, body art, piercings and even scent). My personal experience has indicated that people on the Left are much more likely to disregard these attributes. Many on the Left take an "individualistic" approach to these attributes, where deviations from the "ideal" are a point of self expression (particularly with respect to hair, piercings, tattoos and weight); others on the Left attempt to "deconstruct" the "ideal" by actively subverting it. People on the Right tend to accept the "ideal" as desirable, and strive to achieve it.

ivraatiems 6y ago
You are right, I think, but maybe not seeing the whole picture as to why the left tries to break these standards down: Not everything you list is entirely a personal choice. Weight and scent are only a choice to a certain extent, as is available hairstyle. Choice of fashion, hairstyle, etc., are also culturally limited in many cases, or limited by where one lives and what one can access. That's the point of left-leaning deconstruction: to point out that what we take as the standard in these areas is no standard, just a cultural determination (which shuts some people out, or makes it hard for them unnecessarily) we've been told never to question. In my view, the right leaning response tends to be "yeah, but it's a determination that benefits us, so we like it."
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Piercings, tattoos, unnatural hair colors and certain apparel commonly associated with "the left" - those are all tribal ornaments. They subvert or deconstruct nothing, they signal in-group/out-group membership. In terms of a natural instinct for aesthetics, I would argue that tribal ornaments are in fact generally unpleasant, which makes them honest signals. Certain African tribes have ornamentations that are outright mutilations. Similarly, as the ornaments of an out-group get appropriated by broader society, its ornaments must become more extreme to achieve the desired effect (e.g. the rise of facial tattoos). Furthermore, signaling society as a whole that you represent an out-group (and therefore a potential threat) confers various disadvantages, which also fits neatly into some oppression narrative that a proper leftist must endure.
  - ivraatiems 6y ago
    > They subvert or deconstruct nothing, they signal in-group/out-group membership. Why can't they do both? When you call a body alteration someone made by choice a "mutilation", you're viewing it from your cultural context, not theirs. Your context might be the default where you live, but it isn't the only one. That's the whole point: The limits of aesthetically pleasing appearance are subjective and shouldn't be dictated by what you or I personally find comfortable. Sure, there's a signaling component to what people wear. But to assert people are getting face tattoos just to indicate which political tribe they're in is an extreme claim that requires substantial evidence. Do you have any?
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      > Why can't they do both? Because you can actually see the opposite happening: Mainstream culture subverts tribal ornamentation by picking up the look as fashion but discarding the essence, a process also known as "cultural appropriation". As for deconstruction, I just don't see it. Well, maybe I sort of see it with the unnatural hair colors. Maybe you can explain how? > When you call a body alteration someone made by choice a "mutilation", you're viewing it from your cultural context, not theirs. Particularly, I was thinking of the practice of amputating the small finger that is practiced by certain Xhosa tribes. Objectively speaking, it confers no advantages, not even those that could be attributed to the genital mutilation practiced in Abrahamic religions. It therefore is a very strong tribal signal - and unlikely to be appropriated. > That's the whole point: The limits of aesthetically pleasing appearance are subjective and shouldn't be dictated by what you or I personally find comfortable. What "should or should not be" is of no consequence to basic primate behavior: You send an out-group signal, you get the out-group treatment - and vice versa. > But to assert people are getting face tattoos just to indicate which political tribe they're in is an extreme claim that requires substantial evidence. I didn't actually claim that. In any event, it doesn't have to be a political tribe per se, nor does it have to be one particular tribe. A Maori is going to have a face tattoo for different reasons than a rapper. By getting a face tattoo you are at least implicitly positioning yourself against anyone who thinks face tattoos are bad, which probably includes 99% of "conservatives". Unless you're Maori of course, then maybe getting a face tattoo would be the "conservative" thing to do.
- growlist 6y ago
  The most subversive person one can be in 2020 is a hard-working, successful, heterosexual, white person with a happy family.

ivraatiems 6y ago

You are right, I think, but maybe not seeing the whole picture as to why the left tries to break these standards down: Not everything you list is entirely a personal choice. Weight and scent are only a choice to a certain extent, as is available hairstyle. Choice of fashion, hairstyle, etc., are also culturally limited in many cases, or limited by where one lives and what one can access. That's the point of left-leaning deconstruction: to point out that what we take as the standard in these areas is no standard, just a cultural determination (which shuts some people out, or makes it hard for them unnecessarily) we've been told never to question. In my view, the right leaning response tends to be "yeah, but it's a determination that benefits us, so we like it."

gridlockd 6y ago
Piercings, tattoos, unnatural hair colors and certain apparel commonly associated with "the left" - those are all tribal ornaments. They subvert or deconstruct nothing, they signal in-group/out-group membership. In terms of a natural instinct for aesthetics, I would argue that tribal ornaments are in fact generally unpleasant, which makes them honest signals. Certain African tribes have ornamentations that are outright mutilations. Similarly, as the ornaments of an out-group get appropriated by broader society, its ornaments must become more extreme to achieve the desired effect (e.g. the rise of facial tattoos). Furthermore, signaling society as a whole that you represent an out-group (and therefore a potential threat) confers various disadvantages, which also fits neatly into some oppression narrative that a proper leftist must endure.
- ivraatiems 6y ago
  > They subvert or deconstruct nothing, they signal in-group/out-group membership. Why can't they do both? When you call a body alteration someone made by choice a "mutilation", you're viewing it from your cultural context, not theirs. Your context might be the default where you live, but it isn't the only one. That's the whole point: The limits of aesthetically pleasing appearance are subjective and shouldn't be dictated by what you or I personally find comfortable. Sure, there's a signaling component to what people wear. But to assert people are getting face tattoos just to indicate which political tribe they're in is an extreme claim that requires substantial evidence. Do you have any?
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    > Why can't they do both? Because you can actually see the opposite happening: Mainstream culture subverts tribal ornamentation by picking up the look as fashion but discarding the essence, a process also known as "cultural appropriation". As for deconstruction, I just don't see it. Well, maybe I sort of see it with the unnatural hair colors. Maybe you can explain how? > When you call a body alteration someone made by choice a "mutilation", you're viewing it from your cultural context, not theirs. Particularly, I was thinking of the practice of amputating the small finger that is practiced by certain Xhosa tribes. Objectively speaking, it confers no advantages, not even those that could be attributed to the genital mutilation practiced in Abrahamic religions. It therefore is a very strong tribal signal - and unlikely to be appropriated. > That's the whole point: The limits of aesthetically pleasing appearance are subjective and shouldn't be dictated by what you or I personally find comfortable. What "should or should not be" is of no consequence to basic primate behavior: You send an out-group signal, you get the out-group treatment - and vice versa. > But to assert people are getting face tattoos just to indicate which political tribe they're in is an extreme claim that requires substantial evidence. I didn't actually claim that. In any event, it doesn't have to be a political tribe per se, nor does it have to be one particular tribe. A Maori is going to have a face tattoo for different reasons than a rapper. By getting a face tattoo you are at least implicitly positioning yourself against anyone who thinks face tattoos are bad, which probably includes 99% of "conservatives". Unless you're Maori of course, then maybe getting a face tattoo would be the "conservative" thing to do.
growlist 6y ago
The most subversive person one can be in 2020 is a hard-working, successful, heterosexual, white person with a happy family.